Please note: You need to have 'Active content' enabled in your IE browser in order to see the index of articles on this webpage

Foreign leaders shun ZITF

Zim Online

by Lizwe
Sebatha Wednesday 23 April 2008

BULAWAYO – Zimbabwe’s main
trade fair begins today with no foreign leader expected to grace the
occasion as has been the tradition in the past, but Harare said this did not
mean other countries were shunning President Robert Mugabe’s increasingly
isolated government.

Western companies will again boycott the Zimbabwe
International Trade Fair (ZITF) as they have done since 2000 in protest
against Mugabe’s controversial economic policies and human rights
accord.

But International Trade Minister Obert Mpofu was adamant that the
absence of a head of state to officially open the trade showcase did not
mean other governments no longer wanted to be seen associating with Mugabe’s
government which continues to hang onto power despite losing elections to
the opposition last month.

“President Mugabe will be the guest of
honour and will officially open the 2008 ZITF on Friday. I do not see that
as a snub (by other governments),” said Mpofu in a telephone interview.
Mpofu would not say whether Harare had attempted at all to invite a foreign
leader to the fair.

The guest of honour at previous fairs has been a
visiting head of state, invited by Mpofu’s ministry to officially open the
show. The last foreign head of state to official open the ZITF was Tanzanian
President Jakaya Kikwete in 2006.

Mugabe’s government – already under
targeted European and American sanctions – has come under intense pressure
from neighbours and the wider international community after it blocked
release of results of the March 29 presidential election that the Zimbabwean
leader is believed to have lost to opposition leader Morgan
Tsvangirai.

A vote recount in 23 constituencies that analysts fear could
see Mugabe’s ZANU PF party regain control of Parliament which it lost to the
opposition in a parliamentary poll also in March has further heightened
tensions in Zimbabwe, amid warnings that the situation could breakout into
violence and bloodshed.

South African ruling party leader Jacob Zuma
said on Tuesday that the situation in Zimbabwe was not acceptable and urged
African leaders to intervene, as more of southern Africa’s leading political
leaders began to show signs they were getting fed up with Mugabe’s
government.

"It's not acceptable. It's not helping the Zimbabwean people
who have gone out to . . . elect the kind of party and presidential
candidate they want, exercising their constitutional right," Zuma told the
press in Germany where he is on tour.

"The electoral commission must
issue the results because it is actually destroying its own credibility as
an institution that is supposed to be neutral."

Zuma’s spoke barely
24 hours after Zambia, which chairs the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), urged regional states to bar a Chinese ship carrying
weapons for Mugabe’s government from docking at their ports, saying the
weapons could deepen Zimbabwe's election crisis.

The Chinese ship, known
as An Yue Jiang fled South Africa’s Durban port after a High Court judge
directed that the ship be offloaded but refused to allow the weapons to be
transported across South Africa to Zimbabwe.

Mozambique and Angola have
said they will not allow the ship to dock at their ports, in an
unprecedented move by regional governments that have in the past stood by
Mugabe’s administration, shielding it from censure by the international
community.

But it remains to be seen whether the evident impatience with
Harare among key players in the region will in due course translate into a
policy shift by the SADC which this week backed South African President
Thabo Mbeki as mediator in Zimbabwe.

Mbeki has been the chief
architect of SADC’s policy on Zimbabwe that favours engaging Mugabe but
which critics complain has failed to yield results in the past and has been
misconstrued as support by the 84-year old Zimbabwean leader. –
ZimOnline.

Zimbabwe rejects UN intervention

Zim Online

by
Patricia Mpofu Wednesday 23 April 2008

HARARE – Zimbabwe’s
government on Tuesday rejected calls for United Nations (UN) intervention
saying the country was not in crisis despite rising political violence amid
an election stalemate that analysts say could lead to more conflict and
bloodshed.

Deputy information minister Bright Matonga said Harare would
invite the world body if it felt the situation had deteriorated beyond its
control.

“They can only intervene when there is a crisis,” he said.
“There is not crisis at the moment we do not see why they should be invited.
We will invite them when there is a real crisis not now.”

Opposition
Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party leader Morgan Tsvangirai asked UN
Secretary General Ban ki-Moon for intervention by the world body to stop a
wave of violence and murder against opposition supporters since Zimbabwe’s
disputed elections.

The MDC says 10 of its supporters have been killed
while at least 3 000 others have been displaced from their homes in what the
opposition says is a war being waged by Mugabe’s government against the
people.

Zimbabwe, facing its worst recession and food shortages, was
plunged deeper into political crisis after electoral authorities withheld
results of a March 29 presidential election that President Robert Mugabe is
believed to have lost to Tsvangirai.

A vote recount in 23
constituencies that analysts fear could see Mugabe’s ZANU PF party regain
control of Parliament, which it lost to the opposition in a parliamentary
poll also in March, has further heightened tensions in
Zimbabwe.

Meanwhile, Matonga also denied charges that weapons bought
from China could be used to crackdown on government opponents.

“Every
sovereign country is allowed to import weapons from any legitimate source
unless if they are bought from an unofficial supplier,” said Matonga. “We
don’t use weapons to kill like what the British and the Americans are doing
in Iraq.”

A ship ferrying the weapons from China was forced to flee South
Africa’s Durban port after a High Court judge directed that the ship be
offloaded but refused to allow the weapons to be transported across South
Africa to Zimbabwe.

Mozambique and Angola have said they will not
allow the ship to dock at their ports, while Zambia, which chairs the
Southern African Development Community (SADC), urged regional states to bar
the ship from docking at their ports, saying the weapons could deepen
Zimbabwe's election crisis.

The United States said it would also
try to block the Chinese weapons reaching Zimbabwe.

However China
said on Tuesday the weapons shipment that it defended as “perfectly normal
trade” might be returned home following the problems over where to offload
the cargo. – ZimOnline.

Zuma ratchets up rhetoric over Zimbabwe

Financial Times

ByAlec
Russell

Published: April 22 2008 21:55 | Last updated: April 22 2008
21:55

Jacob Zuma, the head of South Africa’s ruling African National
Congress, has stepped up his rhetoric on the crisis in Zimbabwe as he
embarks on a whirlwind tour of Europe’s capitals in an effort to assert his
leadership credentials.

After a 36-hour visit to Berlin he will meet
Gordon Brown, UK prime minister, in London on Wednesday before flying to
Paris on the final leg of what is his first high-profile international
mission since winning control of the ANC from Thabo Mbeki, South Africa’s
president, in December.

The tour could hardly have come at a better
time for the man hoping to lead South Africa next year.The international
reputation of Mr Mbeki, his arch-rival, is in tatters over his “quiet
diplomacy” policy towards Harare. Mr Zuma has in the past fortnight sought
to capitalise on the president’s troubles.

He will not seek to undermine
Mr Mbeki by initiating discussions on Zimbabwe, advisers say.

He is,
however, expecting the subject to be raised by Mr Brown, who is known to
have been exasperated by Mr Mbeki’s non-confrontational stance towards
Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s president.

Zimbabwe’s opposition Movement
for Democratic Change hopes the two will discuss their idea of appointing an
African envoy for the crisis. Mr Mbeki has been the official South African
Development Community (SADC) mediator for Zimbabwe since March
2007.

Mr Zuma on Tuesday called for African leaders to launch a new
mission to “assist” Mr Mbeki as mediator, but stopped short of calling for
him to be replaced.

“When I say leaders should go [to Zimbabwe], I’m
saying that we are fully aware that Mbeki is the mediator,” he said in
Berlin. “But . . . given the gravity of the situation, we should add other
leaders to assist what Mbeki is doing.”

When Mr Zuma said last week
the region could not afford “a deepening crisis”, it was widely seen as a
dig at Mr Mbeki, who a few days earlier had denied there was a crisis over
last month’s disputed elections.

Mr Zuma’s more forthright stance has won
favour in South Africa, as have his recent comments about tackling violent
crime. Against a backdrop of pessimism in white-dominated business circles
over the implications of his taking over the ANC, and also over the
country’s power shortages, he has toured the nation courting in particular
white and business audiences, even visiting down-and-out Afrikaners last
weekend in a remote town.

However, he is best known abroad for his
embroilment in a bribery scandal, over which he is to stand trial on
corruption charges in August, and for controversial comments made two years
ago when on trial for rape. He was acquitted of the latter charge and denies
wrongdoing in the former case.

He will have lunch at the House of Lords
on Wednesday, where he will sit next to Lord Malloch-Brown, minister for
Africa, Asia and the UN, and will have a dinner on Wednesday and lunch on
Thursday with South African investors.

His tour is intended to
counter disquiet in international business circles over South Africa. While
he insists ANC policy will not change under his leadership, his closeness to
the unions who helped revive his political career has raised fears he will
bow to pressure for a less market-friendly policy.

Market uncertainty
intensified this year when the government conceded the country would face
electricity shortages for years as a result of its failure to
plan.

Mr Zuma’s critics point to his recent comments over crime,
including his backing for a minister who urged police to “shoot to kill”, as
evidence of a populist streak.

Zanu PF retains Goromonzi West in first recount
result

New Zimbabwe

By Lindie WhizLast updated: 04/23/2008
07:46:27ZIMBABWE'S ruling Zanu PF party retained its House of Assembly and
Senate seats in the first result announced from a patial recount in 23
constituencies following general elections on March 29.

The result of
the Goromonzi West election was disputed by the opposition Movement for
Democratic Change (MDC), it being one of two which the party challenged
after results released by the Zimbabwe Eelectoral Commission (ZEC) showed it
overturn Zanu PF's majority in parliament for the first time.

Results
were still expected in 22 more constituencies, 21 of which are being
challenged by Zanu PF which claims the MDC bribed election officials to
undercount its votes and President Robert Mugabe's in the presidential poll
whose result is still unknown, over three weeks later.

Zanu PF gained
a single vote in the House of Assembly recount in Goromonzi West, taking its
tally to 6194, against the MDC's 5931. The Senate results remained
unchanged.

Interestingly, the Goromonzi West election was one of two
claimed to be " fatally flawed" when the recount began by a SADC election
observer Dianne Kohbler-Barnard -- a Member of Parliament for South Africa's
opposition Democratic Alliance.

She claimed to have seen "ballot
boxes with keys missing. One had a padlock open. Some had the envelopes with
the keys sealed with Sellotape instead of wax... It tells me the box was
opened, the ballots were fiddled with and it was repackaged but the person
did it badly."

The MDC charges that the exercise is a farce and has been
fixed by Zanu PF after ballot stuffing, a charge which President Robert
Mugabe's party rejects.

Election officials were expecting the bulk of
results from the recount to be announced starting on Wednesday
morning.

In Zimbabwe's 210 member House of Assembly, a
party needs 106 seats to be able to pass laws and elect a Speaker. Three
elections were postponed, and of those contested, the MDC was declared to
have won 99 to Zanu PF's 97 and another MDC faction won 10 seats, with one
going to an independent.

Zanu PF needs to overturn results in at least
nine constituencies won by the MDC to regain the majority.

In the
Upper House or Senate, Zanu PF has 30 seats, Tsvangirai's MDC 24 and another
MDC faction led by Arthur Mutambara has control of six. Whoever wins the
presidential race appoints 10 provincial governors, and five Senators.
Eighteen chiefs are seconded from the Council of Chiefs to seat in the
deliberative 93-member chamber which has the power to block legislation.

Zimbabwe can take hope from Romania

The Herald, Scotland

You are
right to be critical of the role of South African President Thabo Mbeki in
the Zimbabwe situation (Editorial, April 19).

With the UN seemingly
reluctant or unable to pressure Robert Mugabe in any significant way, the
role of the biggest country in the area should be crucial. Mbeki, while
having displayed real courage in the fight against apartheid, has become an
increasingly eccentric figure, as his attitude to Aids has shown.

The
Zimbabwean people themselves can hardly be blamed for their lukewarm
response to the call by the MDC for a general strike, given a situation of
high unemployment, massive inflation and food shortages.

While the
situation looks bleak, hopefully these people can take heart from events in
eastern Europe in the recent past. In Romania, for example, a seemingly
impregnable dictator such as Ceausescu was brought down in a very short
space of time.

Mugabe and his acolytes were clearly surprised by the
election results. As such, perhaps this from Shakespeare's Julius Caesar is
appropriate: "Tis true, this god did shake."

Zimbabwe mirrors Yeltsin’s Russia

New Zimbabwe

By Gilbert
MupondaLast updated: 04/23/2008 04:49:51ZIMBABWE’S current situation
closely mirrors that of Russia in the mid to late 1990s in many respects. Of
particular importance President Robert Mugabe finds himself in a situation
similar to where President Boris Yeltsin found himself in 1996.

Panic
struck the Yeltsin team when opinion polls suggested that the ailing
president could not win; members of his entourage urged him to cancel
presidential elections and effectively rule as dictator from then
on.

The president's inner circle assumed that it had only a short time in
which to act on privatisation “empowerment”: it therefore needed to take
steps that would have a large and immediate impact, making the reversal of
reform prohibitively costly for their opponents. The team quickly devised a
plan to co-opt potentially powerful interests, including enterprise
directors and regional officials, in order to ensure Yeltsin's
re-election.

When Zimbabwe was implementing ESAP in the 1990s, Russia
followed similar trade liberalisation policies as well. The process of
liberalisation would create winners and losers, depending on how particular
industries, classes, age groups, ethnic groups, regions, and other sectors
of Russian society were positioned.

Some would benefit by the opening
of competition; others would suffer. Among the winners were the new class of
entrepreneurs and black marketeers that had emerged in the early 1990s. The
trend is very similar to the various empowerment schemes that have been
implemented in Zimbabwe over the last few years.

The new capitalist
opportunities presented by the opening of the Russian economy in the late
1980s and early 1990s affected many people's interests. As the Soviet system
was being dismantled, well-placed bosses, career politicians and technocrats
in the Communist Party, the KGB, and the ruling party Youth League were
cashing in on their Soviet-era power and privileges. Some quietly liquidated
the assets of their organisations and secreted the proceeds in overseas
accounts and investments.

This development could yet be replayed in the
Zimbabwean scenario. Others created banks and enterprises in Russia, taking
advantage of their insider positions to win exclusive government contracts,
tenders, and exclusive licenses and to acquire subsidised loans and supplies
at artificially low, state-subsidised prices in order to transact business
at high, market-value prices.

During the same period, a few young
people, with limited much social status, but with lots of entrepreneurial
spirit, saw opportunity in the economic and legal confusion of the
transition. During the period 1987 and 1992, trading of abundant natural
resources and foreign currencies, as well as imports of highly demanded
consumer goods and then domestic production of their rudimentary
substitutes, rapidly enabled these pioneering entrepreneurs to accumulate
considerable wealth.

In turn, the emerging cash-based, highly opaque
markets provided a breeding ground for a large number of racket gangs. It’s
clear Zimbabwe has followed a similar path. The black market has become the
dominant market for all basic items. Whilst this has created opportunities
for enterprising individuals it has left the state coffers bleeding due to
the limited ability to tax such activities. The problem is worsened that
some state enterprises have become main actors in black market activities
especially in the case of foreign currency.

By the mid-nineties, the
best-connected former leaders accumulated considerable financial resources,
while on the other hand the most successful entrepreneurs became acquainted
with government officials and politicians. The privatisation of state
enterprises was a unique opportunity, since it gave many of those who had
gained wealth in the early 1990s a chance to convert it into shares of
privatised enterprises.

Zimbabwe has had its on start -stop privatisation
programme which has occasionally been put on the back burner. However, in
its place Zimbabwe developed its own unique empowerment model from the land
reform, to farm mechanisation and to subsidised funding. Whilst the
intentions are noble, what has been queried in both countries is the after
effect plus the skewed distribution of the beneficiaries.

The Yeltsin
government hoped to use privatisation to spread ownership of shares in
former state enterprises as widely as possible to create political support
for his government and his reforms. This presents a clear similarity with
the Zimbabwean land reform. The government used a system of free vouchers as
a way to give mass privatisation a jump-start. But it also allowed people to
purchase shares of stock in privatised enterprises with cash. Even though
initially each citizen received a voucher of equal face value, within months
most of them converged in the hands of intermediaries who were ready to buy
them for cash right away.

As the government ended the voucher
privatisation phase and launched cash privatisation, it devised a program
that it thought would simultaneously speed up privatisation and yield the
government a much-needed infusion of cash for its operating needs. Under the
scheme, which quickly became known world wide as "loans for shares", the
Yeltsin regime auctioned off substantial packages of stock shares in some of
its most desirable enterprises, such as energy, telecommunications, and
metallurgical firms, as collateral for bank loans.

The scheme had at
least three desired outcomes. Firstly to make any policy reversal very
expensive and complicated for Yeltsin’s rivals should they win power.
Secondly, to raise cash for a cash-strapped government which was running out
of sources of money after printing money had caused massive inflation and
currency collapse. The third desired result was to extend patronage to buy
loyalty and support from the new and fast-developing capitalist
class.

Whilst the initial transaction is disguised as a loan, it is in
fact a deeply discounted outright disposal of a valuable state asset at a
fraction of its value. This is clear since the state is in fact bankrupt
which is why it is engaging in such a transaction. And it well known upfront
that the state cannot repay the loan and as such the security for the loan
(shares) are already exchanging hands permanently.

When the rumour
mill went into overdrive speculating that one of Russia’s most well known
billionaires was in Zimbabwe ahead of a crunch election, one should be
forgiven to think Zimbabwe was just about to unveil its own mini-version of
loan for shares scheme.

In exchange for the loans, the state would hand
over assets worth many times as much. Under the terms of the deals, if the
Yeltsin government failed to repay the “loans” by September 1996, the
lenders would automatically acquire title to the shares and could then
immediately on-sell the stock or take an equity position in the
enterprise.

The first auctions under the loans for shares scheme were
held in late 1995. The auctions were usually structured in such a way so to
limit the number of banks bidding for shares and thus to keep the auction
prices extremely low. By summer 1996, major packages of shares in some of
Russia's largest firms had been transferred to a small number of major
banks, thus allowing a handful of powerful banks to acquire substantial
ownership shares over major firms at shockingly low prices. These deals were
effectively giveaways of valuable state assets to a few powerful,
well-connected, and wealthy individuals.

This trend creates very
powerful interest groups who have to be co-opted into any change in the
status quo agenda. Zimbabwe has some valuable assets which could end up
going this route. In addition, under the recently passed 51% local ownership
law, the requirement to cede or sell a stake to the state can easily end up
feeding such a scheme. This would be possible since certain businesses would
be forced to sell or give up stakes to the state .The state would in turn
liquidate such acquired stakes through its own version of loans for shares
scheme.

AU Must Deal With Country Now

The Monitor
(Kampala)

EDITORIAL23 April 2008Posted to the web 22 April
2008

The election saga continues in Zimbabwe with the electoral
commission refusing to release results three weeks after the elections were
held. The opposition Movement for Democratic Change led by Mr Morgan
Tsvangirai, claims to have defeated the Zanu Patriotic Front's long serving
leader President Mugabe.

What is clear is that Mr Mugabe did not win
the election. But what is amazing is that the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission
(Zec) refused to release the results of the presidential election simply
because Mr Mugabe did not win.

In an effort to ensure results are
released, Mr Tsvangirai appealed to African leaders in the region who,
through the Southern African Cooperation and Development Council (Sadc)
urged the Zec to release results urgently.

This was simply ignored and
the Zec ordered a recount in 23 constituencies when neither party had
contested the results. Mr Tsvangirai then appealed to the courts which tried
all they could to delay the ruling but finally ruled it could not order Zec
to release the results. Now the MDC has warned that the country was slipping
into a war situation and nobody seems to take it seriously.

African
leaders who, perhaps, have their skeletons to protect when it comes to
elections don't seem so keen on ensuring democracy is upheld in Zimbabwe.
Yet many conflicts on the continent have arisen as result of dissatisfaction
with election results or power sharing.

It was hoped that South
African President Thabo Mbeki would be helpful in resolving the Zimbabwe
crisis but in the current situation and in the past few years, he has
totally failed yet he wields a lot of influence over Mr Mugabe.

But
now the reality of the crisis requires that African leaders through the
African Union, (AU) should step up and ensure democracy prevails in
Zimbabwe. It will be sad if the country slips into a civil war yet
opportunities to save the situation have been wasted. What will the African
leaders tell the world and Africa? That they saw it all coming but did
nothing?

Apart from Sadc calling for an urgent meeting on Zimbabwe on
April 12, no serious steps have been taken by the AU to resolve this crisis.
This can only mean that other African leaders can take the road taken by
Zimbabwe when they feel they should not leave power even if voters decide
against them.

African leaders will be to blame for any chaos that
crops up in Zimbabwe because of their failure to act.

Potential Seen For Zimbabwe Humanitarian Crisis To Exceed 2005
Mayhem

VOA

By Jonga Kandemiiri and Carole Gombakomba
Washington 22 April 2008

Zimbabwean church leaders
called Tuesday for international intervention to end the violence that has
swept the country in the aftermath of elections, warning that without action
the attacks on opposition supporters in rural areas in particular by ruling
party youth militia could lead to mass killings as experienced in Kenya and
Rwanda.

"Organized violence perpetrated against individuals, families and
communities who are accused of campaigning or voting for the 'wrong'
political party ... has been unleashed throughout the country," said a joint
statement issued by the Evangelical Fellowship of Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe
Catholic Bishops’ Conference, the Zimbabwe Council of Churches, the Zimbabwe
Pastor's Conference and the Christian Alliance.

"We warn the world
that if nothing is done to help the people of Zimbabwe from their
predicament, we shall soon be witnessing genocide similar to that
experienced in Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and other hot spots in Africa and
elsewhere," it said.

The religious groups appealed to the Southern
African Development Community, the African Union and the United Nations to
"work towards arresting the deteriorating political and security situation
in Zimbabwe."

Among new reports of violence, sources said a 61-year-old
man and his 85-year-old mother in Gutu West, Masvingo Province, were badly
beaten by ZANU-PF youth militia on Saturday and had to be rushed to Harare
on Tuesday for medical attention.

Opposition offices continued to be
overwhelmed by people fleeing rural violence.

Vice President
Thokozani Kuphe of the Movement for Democratic Change formation led by
Morgan Tsvangirai visited victims in Harare hospitals as her party asked the
churches to pray for peace and an end to the violence, MDC sources
said.

The government has denied any responsibility in
the rural violence campaign. Justice, Legal and Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Patrick Chinamasa has been quoted in the state-controlled Herald
newspaper as saying the opposition was waging a propaganda campaign to
justify international intervention in Zimbabwe.

Chinamasa said the
allegations of violence were “part of a scheme to undermine the country,
President (Robert) Mugabe and our processes.” He accused opposition
officials of “gallivanting all over the world lying through their teeth that
there is genocide in Zimbabwe and that the country was in a state of
war."

Human rights activists, meanwhile, said the humanitarian crisis
could surpass the turmoil of Operation Murambatsvina ("Drive Out Trash") in
2005 when authorities forcibly evicted hundreds of thousands of people and
leveled their homes.

Rights groups say more than 300 people injured
in politically inspired attacks have sought medical attention with some
serious injuries requiring surgery.

Thousands more are seeking
shelter or hiding in the bush after their homes were burned or otherwise
destroyed by war veterans and ZANU-PF youth militia in an operation that
many observers believe is intended to punish those who voted for the
opposition on March 29 and prepare the ground for a presidential
runoff.

The MDC this week said 3,000 families have been displaced, but
human rights activists said that the number is probably much
higher.

Zimbabwe Opposition Steps Up Diplomatic Offensive As Mugabe Digs
in

VOA

By Blessing Zulu Washington 22 April
2008

Zimbabwean presidential candidate Morgan Tsvangirai
and his opposition Movement for Democratic Change are stepping up a
diplomatic campaign to pressure President Robert Mugabe to concede defeat in
March elections and step down.

Tsvangirai in recent past days has met
with United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Ghanaian President John
Kufuor and former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo. MDC Secretary
General Tendai Biti has met with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga and
former UN chief Kofi Annan, a veteran crisis manager.

In Liberia
early this week, Ban reiterated that the Harare government must release the
results of the March 29 presidential election. "It is unacceptable that the
results of the presidential election in Zimbabwe are not being officially
announced even after three weeks after the election," Ban said at the close
of his Liberia visit.

"I will urge the Zimbabwean authorities and the
election commission to release the results as soon as possible," he added,
before heading to Burkina Faso.

Elsewhere, Jacob Zuma, president of
South Africa’s ruling African National Congress, delivered his toughest
comments to date on the delay in releasing election results.

He told
on Reuters in Berlin that withholding election results is "not acceptable.
It's not helping the Zimbabwean people" exercise their democratic
rights.

President Levy Mwanawasa of Zambia condemned comments by the
chairman of his ruling Movement for Multiparty Democracy formation saying
President Robert Mugabe should be forcibly removed from office. President
Mwanawasa said the comments by Geoffrey Chumbwe risked undermining
Zimbabwean-Zambian relations.

MDC top official Biti told
reporter Blessing Zulu of VOA's Studio 7 for Zimbabwe that his party wants
Africa to resolve the crisis.

Government without government

New Zimbabwe

By Trudy
StevensonLast updated: 04/23/2008 07:44:04ZIMBABWE has limped along for
over three weeks now with no official government in place. It looks like we
may well limp along for many more weeks and even months yet, before this
current constitutional crisis is resolved.

Robert Mugabe dissolved
Cabinet the day before the 29 March election, as is normal practice and as
required by the Constitution in preparation for the elections. Despite the
“government statement” on 9 April and the “reaffirmation of the position” by
Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, former Minister of Information “that all Cabinet
ministers are still in office until such a time that a new Cabinet is
appointed to conduct Government business," this is not the case.

A
dissolved Cabinet is a dissolved Cabinet! They can pretend among themselves
as much as they like that they are still in office, but they are not. The
majority of Zimbabweans are still waiting for the new Cabinet to be
announced. We are well aware that there is no substantive government in
place.

The danger, however, is that because of lack of independent
media, especially in the rural areas, people will start to accept and even
act upon the lies put out by “government”. It is a well-known phenomenon
that if something is said by an “authority”, that statement will be accepted
and even acted upon. Remember the psychology experiment where someone turned
up the electric voltage to way beyond the point where the recipient was
screaming and would have died in reality, simply because he was obeying the
person in authority?

The myth of the former Zimbabwe government
continuing is even being spread by international media, who ought to know
better. This week, the Mail and Guardian referred to Bright Matonga as the
Deputy Minister for Information and Publicity, presumably because they too
have fallen for the lie.

While we could be right in thinking that this
situation proves that we could get along fine without the former government
being in power, clearly we do need a substantive, constitutionally appointed
Cabinet, and as soon as possible. Neither our Constitution, even the
defective and much-amended Lancaster House version, nor the Electoral Act
ever made provision for such an unthinkable hiatus following an election.
This hiatus looks set to last for an indeterminate period, especially if we
have court cases, appeals, challenges and so on, which is bound to
happen.

In the case of the 2000 elections, some 36 court challenges were
filed and several MPs, including Kenneth Manyonda, were found not to have
won freely and fairly, but those MPs appealed to the Supreme Court and
remained sitting in Parliament, passing laws for the full five-year
term!

The mind boggles, but in the meantime we all need to do everything
in our power to stop this lie (and others!) from spreading. Other
governments and the international community should also be under no illusion
that any agreement made with the former Zanu PF government will be honoured
by the next substantive government.

In particular, our resources,
mines and businesses remain ours and we will not honour agreements giving
them away in whatever manner to other countries or multi-nationals, whether
western or eastern!